When I think of "common sense gun control", I'm actually okay with keeping ignorant fcukwits from leaving loaded guns unsecure in houses with kids running around. I think folks should be held criminally and civilly liable for "accidents" resultant from that sort of negligence. And yes, I think those penalties should be on the stiff side irrespective of the emotional arguments folks may make about how the "parents have suffered enough".

I don't have a problem with gun locks or restrictions that state that guns need to be secured. I don't have a problem with gun registration and mechanisms for knowing the ownership status of legally obtained firearms. I don't think my rights are diminished by such measures and don't really think my interests are any longer furthered by making my bed with paranoid bunker dwellers.

I do have a problem with restrictions that are clearly just incremental steps toward banning. The "assault weapon ban" was such a law and one borne out of extraordinary ignorance. The net effect of it was a polarization of the debate, a spike in the number of "assault weapons" bought, and the defeat of congressional Democrats in the next election cycle. I would hope the Dems know better than to make that mistake again.

When I think of "common sense gun control", I'm actually okay with keeping ignorant fcukwits from leaving loaded guns unsecure in houses with kids running around. I think folks should be held criminally and civilly liable for "accidents" resultant from that sort of negligence. And yes, I think those penalties should be on the stiff side irrespective of the emotional arguments folks may make about how the "parents have suffered enough".

I don't have a problem with gun locks or restrictions that state that guns need to be secured. I don't have a problem with gun registration and mechanisms for knowing the ownership status of legally obtained firearms. I don't think my rights are diminished by such measures and don't really think my interests are any longer furthered by making my bed with paranoid bunker dwellers.

I do have a problem with restrictions that are clearly just incremental steps toward banning. The "assault weapon ban" was such a law and one borne out of extraordinary ignorance. The net effect of it was a polarization of the debate, a spike in the number of "assault weapons" bought, and the defeat of congressional Democrats in the next election cycle. I would hope the Dems know better than to make that mistake again.

I could not agree more with these statements. All of them, in fact what irks me the most are those that look at any regulation and claim slippery slope defense.

- I'm not opposed to securing guns, but there doesn't need to be a law.
- I'm ok with stiffer penalties for negligent ownership. (I actually favor this for a lot of things - drugs shouldn't be illegal, but if you're driving while stoned and hurt someone, the penalties should be more severe).
- I'm mildly opposed to gun registration & tracking because I think it's a waste of time and money - criminals use guns that aren't tracked, so there's not much point in tracking legally owned guns - the amount of guns moving from legal to illegal status is pretty irrelevant to the overall situation compared to the issues with crime and the use of weapons.
- I am opposed to requiring specific types of "childproofing" devices, because people are different and trying to legislate a solution to gun safety will inevitably be restrictive for some people.
- I am very opposed to any type of ban on types of guns.
- I'm mildly opposed to ammunition bans, again mostly on a "waste of time and money" level - since one can assemble pretty much any kind of ammunition in one's garage from mostly-available parts, it seems like a moot point. If criminals want armor-piercing bullets, they can get them easily.

Mostly, I'm opposed to the amount of time and effort people spend on this when there are so many other much more relevant and pressing issues. If people want to restrict guns, they should repeal the 2nd Amendment. If they can't do that, they should just leave it alone and stop trying to work through the cracks.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

Excerpting a write-up I did a while back on my blog...hopefully it's not too long for this venue:

There's something funny about guns. The topic brings out strange qualities in people. Emotional qualities. It seems very difficult for anyone to discuss guns without a strong emotional undercurrent.

So this post isn't exactly about guns. It's about the emotional underpinnings of my reaction to guns.

I've had three defining gun-related instances in my life.

#1: In which I could have been killed by my father's gun.

My father took me deer hunting once. I must have been twelve or older. This was an unusual occurrence because my father was not a hunter, knew nothing about guns, and wouldn't have known what do do with a deer if we managed to bag one. But, in the same way he pretended to want to watch football while actually falling asleep on the couch (but awake enough to yell at us each time we tried to change the channel), going hunting was some kind of way to engage his manly side in the socially acceptable manner.

On this trip he had a rifle. I don't know where he got it, or whether it was a particularly powerful rifle. That didn't matter, though, because the chance we were going to locate, shoot, and drag back a deer was exceedingly remote. It was an excuse to trudge through the forest, drop into sudden silence because maybe there was a deer over there, and use improvised hand signals. When we got tired of this, we headed back to the car, and it was time to unload the gun.

I was sitting in the passenger side seat waiting for my father to get the gun unloaded. He was having trouble getting the cartridge out. He manipulated the rifle bolt, moving it back and forth, trying to work the bullet loose. He was standing outside the driver-side door with the rifle pointing in, at me. I watched the barrel move around, rotating in an unsteady circle that had it pointing at my legs, then my chest, and my twelve or so year old mind envisioned the trajectory of the bullet in those moments and wondered if this was such a good idea. But I said nothing, because he was my father and must know what he was doing, and because, of course, things like that only happen to other people.

Then my father jammed the rifle bolt and the gun went off. The bullet trajectory at that instant turned out to be a couple of inches past the seat I was leaning against, and the bullet went through the floor of the car, behind me.

I couldn't hear. A great ringing sound filled my universe. My body, without bothering to check in with my brain, opened the car door and jumped out, hands over ears, jumping up and down. Every particle of me knew that I had just escaped death by centimeters. People from nearby rushed over to see if I was okay. I couldn't hear them. There was just ringing. I said something, but I couldn't hear myself.

The ringing and the adrenaline rush went away and things returned to normal. I don't recall if my father and I said anything to each other at the time. We certainly never talked about the incident later, and from my perspective I never particularly blamed him and I went on to forget about the whole thing.

Except, 25 or more years later, I found I haven't forgotten. This incident pops up in my mind here and there, triggered by something I'm watching, or if I happen to think of my father. There is something there. I think I've come to realize I never forgave my father for the carelessness that allowed him to almost shoot me.

#2: In which I could have killed someone with my father's gun.

A few years after the almost-shooting, my father decided to buy a hand-gun, I guess for household defense. The day he bought it I wasn't around, and he took my younger sister to a firing range where they both tried out the gun. I was jealous of this, as it sounded fun, and I had missed out on a father-bonding moment.

My father kept the gun in my parents' bedroom. Some months after he bought the gun, I was home with my best friend, studying, when we noticed a car loitering at the end of the road near the house. This house was located at the end of a road in a suburban area, with a big patch of forest behind the house. Recently we had noticed a lot of odd car activity at the end of the road -- it seemed that drug dealers or some such had discovered this nice little out-of-the-way area that was perfect for private dealings. Or maybe it was horny teenagers.

My friend and I decided to investigate. Unbeknownst to him, I went to my parents' bedroom and retrieved the hand gun. In a spurt of sort-of-maturity, I pulled out the clip and put it in one jacket pocket and the gun in the other, to ensure I couldn't fire the gun without having time to contemplate my action. At this point I don't recall if I knew to check if a bullet had already been chambered. I hope so.

As we made our way outside I ran through possible scenarios and wondered if I would actually be able to fire the gun. I kept a hand in each jacket pocket, cradling the contents.

The car was gone by the time we got there. I told my friend about the gun and he was not happy that I had kept this little fact from him. From time to time I've wondered just what would have happened if the car had still been there.

#3: In which any of us could have been killed by my father's gun.

A few months passed after my attempt to be T.J. Hooker. The family was sitting at dinner and odd little things kept coming up in the conversation. I complained that someone had moved stuff around in my bedroom. My sister asked who had locked our little dog in her bedroom. After the third or fourth such little item came up, I got a flash of realization and excused myself to go check on something. Indeed, the $200 I had stashed in my desk was gone. We'd been robbed.

Well, not robbed, as an exasperated 911 operator complained when I called to report the situation. "How many were there?" she asked. "Did they have weapons?"

No, I explained, no one was home when the robbery occurred.

"Then it wasn't robbery," she said with contempt. "This was just a burglary."

Well, excuse me. Anyway, the burglars must have been intent on their goal, as it seems likely our feisty little dog was probably making a racket at them. We determined that they had used a pillow to push the dog into my sister's bedroom so they could lock it in.

It turned out the burglars were armed. Or, if they weren't when they arrived, they were by the time they left, because they had found my father's hand gun. So if any of us had come home while they were still there, we had just given them the means to shoot us.

Score another one for the gun. As I recall, some time later the burglars were caught, and my father's gun played a role in proving what they had done.

I know people passionately for gun ownership and people passionately against it. I've been on both sides of the issue myself. I find I lack the ability to particularly care about gun rights, though, or to romanticize gun ownership. I try to tell myself that my opinions are fact-based, and rely on statistics of how guns are likely to be used.

But whatever I tell myself, these stories provide the emotional underpinning for any opinion I have, and I cannot escape them.

I don't see how you could read that quote as anything other than a mandatory child-proofing device on every gun, possibly that isn't removable. Do you have different interpretation?

Actually. Yes. I do.

Even in the People's Republic of Maryland where you can't purchase 30 round magazines because of the "high capacity magazine ban" and gun control laws are on the stiffer side of the mean, I would be perfectly in compliance with all regulations should I decide to keep my loaded S&W 686 (.357 Magnum) in my GunVault safe without a trigger lock or other gun mounted device.

I take the extra precaution of bolting the save to my floor (largely to make it inconvenient for someone to steal it), but that is not at all necessary to comply with Maryland laws.

I don't see how you could read that quote as anything other than a mandatory child-proofing device on every gun, possibly that isn't removable. Do you have different interpretation?

Actually. Yes. I do.

Even in the People's Republic of Maryland where you can't purchase 30 round magazines because of the "high capacity magazine ban" and gun control laws are on the stiffer side of the mean, I would be perfectly in compliance with all regulations should I decide to keep my loaded S&W 686 (.357 Magnum) in my GunVault safe without a trigger lock or other gun mounted device.

I take the extra precaution of bolting the save to my floor (largely to make it inconvenient for someone to steal it), but that is not at all necessary to comply with Maryland laws.

Correct, but we're not talking about Maryland's laws. We're talking about Obama's proposed policy. And in your case, you have a child-proof safe, not a child-proof gun.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

I do not think any gun control laws will ever be put forth that will apply to police like it applies to the average person. It's not on the table, never was, please stop repeating this.

I didn't say it would. I was pointing out that police do not use childproofing devices, because they might have a need to use their weapon and do not want to be fumbling about with a lock or some other device when their life is in danger.

I am saying you're exaggerating when you compare yourself to a police officer.

I didn't. I compared my situation to one where a police officer is faced with a decision to use force. The dynamics are very similar.

What do you think that the guy who was trying to steal stuff would've done with another half second? Do you seriously think everyone who breaks into people's homes is a psychopathic lethally trained murderer with split second reflexes? That he could've ran out of the house so fast that you could not had time to unlock the gun before confronting him? That if you had a gun in your hand and that you were unlocking it he would have leapt at your throat and murdered everyone in that extra second?

I don't know. I have no interest in finding out. People die in home invasions. I don't want it to be me.

Look, I'm not even saying a law that mandates childproofing guns is a good idea, I'm saying your arguments against it are threadbare. You're basically arguing that no matter why the bill would be enacted, or what good it would do, there may be an instance where maybe that extra second might maybe deter some guy from taking your stuff so it's a bad idea.

No, I'm arguing that in some cases the extra second might be valuable to save someone's life. If such a device is to be mandated, then it should be at least reliable enough for the police to rely on, don't you think?

Um, as stated, this would make childproofing device mandatory, and leaving the device off would be illegal?

There are no specific bills on the table. Nobody has really even said this. This could really only apply when they're stored, or not. It's kinda pointless to discuss details of this nature at this point.

"They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof."

I don't see how you could read that quote as anything other than a mandatory child-proofing device on every gun, possibly that isn't removable. Do you have different interpretation?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

Correct, but we're not talking about Maryland's laws. We're talking about Obama's proposed policy. And in your case, you have a child-proof safe, not a child-proof gun.

Considering how savvy a political operator Obama has already proven to be, I doubt very seriously that he will squander much of his political capital on splitting such hairs. Honestly, considering the gigantic mountain of crap to sift through to get this country past the idiocy of the last 8 years, I can't see him spending any energy on that.

There's something funny about guns. The topic brings out strange qualities in people. Emotional qualities. It seems very difficult for anyone to discuss guns without a strong emotional undercurrent.

The reason for this is relatively simple - guns represent power. The power of fear, the power of assault. Guns directly affect the power dynamics of all kinds of relationships, from those between complete strangers to family members. In completely lawless societies, guns are the marker of power, strength, and status (witness Somalia).

Weapons and armor, the skill to use them, and the money it took to supply them, used to the mark of the powerful. Guns changed things. Now those with less social power had something they could use to equalize the power relationship, and it could be obtained relatively easily. It doesn't take physical prowess to use a gun, and the skills associated with it are easy to learn and do not require large amounts physical strength.

This is the major reason that gun ownership was recognized in the Second Amendment - the founders understood the foundations of power, and were determined not to allow that particular power to be removed from the people, especially when just a few years before it had stood them in good stead in their own rebellion. It's also a major reason our police carry guns - in a society where gun ownership is common, police are at a distinct power disadvantage if they are not armed with guns as well. Note that anti-gun activists never talk about taking away guns from the police, since that would undermine the power of the government - they always talk about taking away guns from citizens. It's not that they want all guns removed; it's that they want guns removed from people they perceive as a threat.

It's all about who has the power.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

It seems that way to you. I do see a lot of extreme views tossed back and forth and I've come to mostly ignore them.

As an aside, much of what you wrote is illustrative of negligent gun ownership.

I'd agree with that.

I'd also add that, though I think I am capable of storing and handling unsecured firearms responsibly, I don't consider it an outrageous violation of my civil liberties for society to demand I take reasonable steps to secure them.

Folks who have read my screeds on gun control in the past will know I'm no big fan of banning behavior. I am pretty firmly opposed to MD's high capacity magazine ban, for instance. A lot of that grows out of the Korean American experience during the L.A. Riots. An AR15 goes a long way to providing sufficient deterrence to looters when Governor "Law and Order" Pete Wilson (R-CA) decides a few slanty eyed shopowners aren't worth getting his hands dirty over.

That said, I don't think it is much to ask of the individual to comply with reasonable restrictions that are both warranted and efficacious. I can see how making sure idiots don't leave loaded, unsecured guns around the house would be a good thing. I can see how requiring registration to keep track of firearms ownership would be a good one as well.

I can see how requiring registration to keep track of firearms ownership would be a good one as well.

Towards what end? A dumb question, perhaps, but aside from keeping guns out of the the hands of known criminals, what other benefit is there to tracking?

I know a number of police investigators. And believe it or not, a staggering number of folks actually commit crimes with guns registered to them. Folks shoot their wives and express surprise that the cops knew to look for a .32 caliber Iver Johnson registered in their name. I say "staggering" not by the sheer number, but the fact that anyone that stupid really exists.

I also think it is a good thing that we make an attempt to keep legal gun ownership the exclusive right of non-criminals.

Reason always has an article in it about gun control. I cannot seem to muster up the interest to actually care about gun control. I mean, it is an important or at least heated debate, but I do not care about guns. I've never shot a gun, held a gun and I have zero interest in ever doing so. I don't understand guns, so I tend not to want to say anything about the issue because my views come from complete ignorance.

The childproof locks are for use when the gun is unattended and stored, not for carry. It's a bogus comparison.

We're talking about the point of use - whether or not you were actually carrying at the time is pretty irrelevant.

No, it's absolutely relevant. You used police on duty as an example of why a delay in accessing a weapon is bad, but you don't explain how putting a device intended to prevent inadvertent use by a child is appropriate on a policeman's carry weapon. Circumstances matter and the police example seems bogus to me.

Quote:

Police can routinely expect to be confronted at close range (ie, 20 feet or less) by a sudden change in situation that requires them to draw and unsafe a weapon very quickly. A home user will probably not see that situation (but see below). For example, in your case, you would have had plenty of time to pull a gun out of a drawer and key it or hit a few numbers on a pad before confronting the individual.

I didn't have "plenty of time", and having to undo two locks instead of one would have taken time that I didn't have.

With all respect, you were not in the situation at the time. You had your choice of actions. You note that you were in the garage. What if you'd simply gone to your neighbor's house and called the police? Or, as I noted, pulled a weapon on the way in from wherever it was stored and simply cleared the lock? Would it really have added that much time?

In my scenario, you'd have had a loaded, safed weapon without a lock in a holster while you were in your house. And it would be legal, and there's no need to mess with a child-proof lock.

But I'll defer to your account because I was not there. I'm just saying that there are other ways to prepare for situations that would not conflict with child safety.

Quote:

If you are in such a hot area that you need the gun unlocked when you are home, then do it. What's the issue? Use a comfortable holster and safe it so you don't have to worry. But when you leave the house and don't take the weapon, put the lock on. When you return, take it off.

Um, as stated, this would make childproofing device mandatory, and leaving the device off would be illegal?

This is the big point. There's no evidence that the interpretation that puts a child-proof device on every weapon would apply to carry situations (or even that it would actually require that.) For example, the law in California requires that gun locks be sold with each gun, but there's no requirement for use of them. Massachusetts penalizes citizens who fail to secure weapons, but only if a child causes injury or threatens someone with the gun. Right now, we don't know exactly what Obama is proposing, so why speculate?

I'm not aware of a state that stops you carrying a gun in your house. Is there one? I suspect DC did, but I know they were the most strict in the country, and that was struck down recently.

Tactically, though, what do you think of my system?

There's no materials safety sheet for astatine. If there were, it would just be the word "NO", scrawled over and over again in charred blood. - Randall Munroe

No, it's absolutely relevant. You used police on duty as an example of why a delay in accessing a weapon is bad, but you don't explain how putting a device intended to prevent inadvertent use by a child is appropriate on a policeman's carry weapon. Circumstances matter and the police example seems bogus to me.

It's not appropriate on a policeman's carry weapon - or any other weapon. That's precisely the point.

In my scenario, you'd have had a loaded, safed weapon without a lock in a holster while you were in your house. And it would be legal, and there's no need to mess with a child-proof lock.

But I'll defer to your account because I was not there. I'm just saying that there are other ways to prepare for situations that would not conflict with child safety.

Certainly. But if a child-proofing device is mandated for all guns, that will change. And that's how I read Obama's policy statement.

Right now, we don't know exactly what Obama is proposing, so why speculate?

I don't read what he says in his policy statement as speculation. I thought it was very clear - all guns were to be child-proofed. That implies to me a device or devices to "protect" the gun itself. I guess we'll see.

Tactically, though, what do you think of my system?

Tactically, it's fine - I just don't think that what Obama is proposing is related to that.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer, State-Tamperings with Money and Banks

It's not appropriate on a policeman's carry weapon - or any other weapon. That's precisely the point.

So who proposed to put it on a policeman's weapon? You did. That was a straw man argument. There's nothing in Obama's proposals (vague as they are as of yet) to even suggest that as a possibility. That's what I'm getting at.

Certainly. But if a child-proofing device is mandated for all guns, that will change. And that's how I read Obama's policy statement.

But that could be done with trigger locks, safes, interlock safeties, responsibility laws, all sorts of things. Here's what they have up on the site:

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.

Note the emphasis is on "keeping guns away from children" and "making guns in this country childproof". Not on mandating the use of any particular technologies, and slanting towards the responsibility laws in my opinion. There's nothing in here that necessarily means what you argue; we just don't know yet. Let's panic when we see a problem, not a potential might-be what-if issue. At least, not panic much.

I read the focus on keeping guns away from kids and preventing access by kids to stored guns . If it does just that, will there be a problem? IE, if you are allowed to keep unsecured weapons in your house when you are there, or are held responsible for accidents or misdeeds by kids, will that be okay?

There's no materials safety sheet for astatine. If there were, it would just be the word "NO", scrawled over and over again in charred blood. - Randall Munroe

The real question is here is what does "making guns in this country childproof" mean? There is no possible way to police that every idol firearm inside each household is "childproofed" (trigger locks, safes, interlock safeties, etc.). That is just ignorant to pass any kind of law that mandates this. It is useless. It is only after the fact that a kid got hurt, that you could do anything anyways. I'm not saying don't use responsibility, but I know I have common sense enough to make sure firearms are stored in a safe manner when kids are around. Surely they have different ideas about childproofing a gun.

Rather than stumbled through an argument I don't have the words to argue well I'll just nod my head and agree with everything in Paleo's first post, and then Malor's.

And on that ever infamous video, I hate when the guy reports to someone that he "had an AD". In my eyes there is no "accidental discharge". It's either intentional or it's negligent. One of the two. If you accidentally fire a gun then you were negligent in your handling of it. Period.

We can not debate what is meant by child proof at this point. Both sides are extrapolating a large amount from one sentence.

Now what I find strange is we are all ignoring the other part of this statement that is a whole lot clearer and in my opinion worse. Putting back in place the assault weapons ban.

I speculate he is referring to the most recent version but I am open to considering he will propose a new version. Either way any ban on weaponry like this does absolutely nothing to prevent crime or gun deaths. It is smoke and mirrors to appease his party while we (the american sportsmen) are the ones who suffer.

whitehouse.gov wrote:

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Why do American sportsmen need AR-15s and weapons with 30 round magazines to take down deer? I'm asking this question seriously. With all the vitriol I've seen expressed against the Assault Weapons Ban, I still wonder why the American sportsman feels he NEEDS those weapons, and, if he doesn't have unfettered access to them, his rights have somehow been egregiously violated. You have a vast array of guns you can buy: handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. Why do you need more?

In my mind, it's the American sportsman who is the arch stone of any reasonable effort to improve the control of firearms and lessen the deaths and crimes committed with them. After all, they seem to--mostly--understand the need for proper training and respect of guns.

Yet they seem more fixated on making sure they have access to gizmos and gadgets and pseudo SWAT or military gear instead of acknowledging that there's a whole class of gun owners who don't share their respect and that are actively misusing them. They fight against registration. They fight against high capacity magazines. They fight against waiting periods. They fight against closing loopholes they know are being exploited by questionable people. They fight against things that really should be common sense.

There has to be a middle ground where the American sportsman recognizes this gap and does something to fix it since it is something they apparently care very much about. Just having them admit that their fervor for guns (and the policies they've worked hard to get into place or get overturned) has contributed to the dark side of gun ownership would be a start.

Yonder wrote:

At this point striking the Pope once with a sword is a completely reasonable action.